Above is a video that I saw on Cdr Salamander’s “Full Bore Friday.” This happened about 43 years ago so there is a good chance you may not know about it. The British lost several ships but still won the war. Ironically if Argentina had waited for a few months some of the critical ships would have been decommissioned, most importantly the two HMS Fearless Landing Platform Docks. Instead they remained in commission until 1999 and 2002.
The HMS Coventry was slightly smaller than a Nation Security Cutter or an Offshore Patrol Cutter. During the fighting the Type 42 had no close in weapon system but they were added shortly after the fighting ended.
A new line item in the U.S. Navy Fiscal Year 2026 budget is supporting a containerized Mark 48 Advanced Capability (ADCAP) torpedo launcher for use on unmanned surface vessels (USV) and small combatants.
But looks like there may be more to it than the very expensive Mk48 torpedo.
“Program Executive Office, Unmanned and Small Combatants (PEO USC) is leading the effort and will deliver a 3.5 hour presentation about Liberator and a related unmanned undersea vehicle (UUV) payload…The Liberator provides for the development of alternative methods for launching torpedoes or similar devices…”
The Mk48 is intended to be used against the most demanding (nuclear submarines) in the most hostile environment. They have to be fast and they need to be capable of surviving great pressure. For this reason they are extremely expensive. The basic design goes back to 1972 but there have been many improvements.
I find this exciting because it looks like we might have a relative inexpensive anti-surface torpedo. It would allow a Patrol Boat to stop even a large ship.
A Navy briefing slide showing the internal components and describing the various features of the PSU_ARL Common Very Light Weight Torpedo (CVLWT) design
“The FY 2026 increase includes support SLQ-25E countermeasures capability improvements, and support for development of an anti-torpedo torpedo defense hard kill capability… …integration and testing the Hard Kill Program will be developed through FY 2030. The US Navy plans to install this torpedo hard-kill countermeasure on over 165 different surface ships.”
“Development will also include improvements to the NIXIE winch to enable the integration of the TWS system, the design and development of a launching system that will launch the Compact Rapid Attack Weapon (CRAW) variant designed for torpedo defense. The launcher will be designed to have the capability to launch ADC-MK2 Acoustic countermeasure devices along with the CRAW countermeasure.”
Sounds like they are going to put it on every ship that has a NIXIE, which would include the National Security Cutters and perhaps the Offshore Patrol Cutters as well.
What isn’t clear is if the multi-mission nature of the weapon was retained. Apparently the Mk58 torpedo can also be used against submarines as well as inbound torpedoes. Can it be used against surface ships? If so, can it target the stern/propellers/rudder? If so, it could give small cutters an effective way to forcibly stop even large ships, a capability they need for the Ports, Waterways, and Coastal Security mission.
“…on 11 June 2025 … a public tender released via the official German e-procurement platform marks the beginning of a strategic modernization effort in the German Navy’s close-range defense capabilities. In a context where drones and asymmetric threats are playing an increasingly prominent role in contemporary conflicts, the Bundeswehr is initiating a structural transformation of its naval weapons systems.
“At the core of this reform is the introduction of a new 30×173 mm caliber, intended to progressively replace the currently deployed 27 mm light naval guns. This development aims to improve effectiveness against light aerial targets, especially drones, but also surface and land-based threats, by using programmable airburst munitions. The doctrinal shift reflects operational requirements and signals a lasting change in the defensive posture of German naval vessels.”
The gun that is being replaced is in some respects a better weapon than the 25mm the Coast Guard currently uses. It fires a heavier projectile, over a greater distance and has a much higher rate of fire, but apparently they have decided that an airburst projectile is necessary to deal with the drone threat.
The Coast Guard should probably come to the same conclusion. It now appears that an attack by unmanned air or surface craft is the most likely form of terrorist attack. Air burst projectiles are the best available, reasonably priced, hard kill systems for both self-defense and close in force protection.
Unlike the German Navy, the 30x173mm round is already in service with the US Navy and is expected to arm the Polar Security Cutter.
The new large cutters are getting 57mm guns which should be effective, but the FRCs are the units most likely to encounter this threat. The 30 mm would also be more effective against larger threats. We have been told that it is possible to replace a few parts and upgrade existing 25mm mounts to 30mm mounts. If so, we should be doing this.
Click to enlarge. Magura V7 surface drone (USV) armed with two Sidewinder missiles. Note that the missiles have yellow protective covers over their seekers, indicating that it is on a test run.
You have to hand it to the Ukrainians–they think outside the box.
This is another example of what the Coast Guard might face from an unconventional attack using USVs, but it also suggests that it should not be too hard to give even small cutters an effective short range AAW weapon.
The Russian aircraft were SU-30s, relatively high tech, high performance aircraft. It appears they were being used in a low tech way, attacking from relatively low altitude.
Attacks on cutters by aircraft are likely to be from at least medium altitudes with missiles or glide bombs. Short range surface to air weapons are not likely to take down an aircraft at altitude, but they might be effective against stand-off weapons and would at least make strafing dangerous.
A FaceBook friend alerted me to photos and the video above of an exercise launch of Spike NLOS missiles from a Philippine Acero class Fast Attack Craft (FAC), a version of the Israeli Shaldag V.
There was a discussion of Spike NLOS in earlier post. That post showed two smaller four round launchers fitted to an 11.9 meter craft.
The missile never leaves its shipping container until it is launched.
“Spike NLOS is delivered as a ‘wooden roound’ enabling long shelf life, low maintenance, and low life-cycle cost.”
TYPHOON MLS NLOS has an eight cell Spike NLOS missile launcher and integrated Toplite stabilized observation and target acquisition system (same as on the Mk38 mod2 and mod3). Photo: RAFAEL via defense-update.com
Philippine Navy Acero class patrol boat launches Rafael Spike NLOS. The vessel features a Rafael Typhoon MLS-NLOS missile launcher capable of carrying 8 Spike-NLOS surface-to-surface missiles (limited to 4 ships only). Additionally, it is armed with one Mk.44 Bushmaster II autocannon mounted on a Rafael Typhoon Mk 30-C remote-controlled weapon station, two M2HB Browning 12.7 mm/50-cal. heavy machine guns mounted on Rafael Mini Typhoon remote-controlled weapon stations, and two M60 7.62 mm/30-cal. GP machine guns.
The Mk 48 torpedo was intended for use in both submarines and surface ships, in the latter for the ASW role. Twin Mk 25 tubes for Mk 48 torpedoes were fitted in guided missile frigates (DLG/DLGN) in their after deckhouse and in escort ships (DE/DEG) in their stern counters. This photo shows a Mk 48 being launched from the USS Talbot (DEG-4). Lockheed Shipbuilding; US Navy
Looking back a couple of years, The War Zone had a post that argued that Heavy Weight Torpedoes (HWT) should be installed as anti-submarine weapons on surface ships.
The Navy once toyed with the idea of putting heavyweight anti-submarine torpedoes on its frigates, an idea that could be relevant again today. by KEVIN NOONAN, JUN 6, 2023
–
The argument is based on misgivings about the effectiveness of the Mk54 light weight torpedo (LWT)) and about reliance on only one weapon in general.
He specifically talks about problems with the Mk54 and the possibility of mounting at least one torpedo tube with reloads on the Constellation class guided missile frigates.
–
He also advocates adding a bow mounted active sonar to provide targeting for the HWT. From what I hear, the CAPTAS 4 sonar really does make the bow mounted sonar unnecessary.
—
His argument seems sound, but there are perhaps additional reasons for putting one or two heavy weight torpedo tubes on large Cutters, even if they don’t come with the very expensive Mk48 torpedoes.
Given the implicit requirement in the Coast Guard mission set that cutters should be able to forcibly stop any vessel regardless of size, a heavy weight torpedo could be a very effective ship stopper with relatively long range.
–
For Mobilization:
–
In case of a major conflict I would anticipate large cutters would be used to enforce blockades and/or escort logistics support ships.
–
The new generation of large cutters are armed adequately to enforce a blockade against clandestine shipments in small vessels for operations like Market Time, but to forcibly stop larger vessels we need something more than the 57mm. Since in most cases the desire would be to stop rather than to sink vessels like large tankers, we need something that can reliably disable propulsion, most probably a smart torpedo.
–
To escort logistics ships against either China or Russia, the minimum requirement would be a towed array like CAPTAS 4 (selected to equip FFG-62 class) or one of that family, an ASW helicopter, space for torpedoes and sonobuoys, and additional personnel (probably Navy Reserves) to operate and maintain them.
–
It would not be too difficult to add light weight torpedoes to large cutters, but unless there is major surgery, cutters will not have the vertical launch systems that allow Navy escort vessels to also have an organic longer ranged ASW weapon in the form of vertical launched ASROC for times when an ASW helicopter is not available. A heavy weight ASW torpedo could provide such a long range capability.
If you are a regular reader, you know, the Coast Guard has a requirement implicit in its missions to be able to forcibly stop any vessel, regardless of size, particularly in response to unconventional maritime attacks. This ability needs to be widely and readily available. The Coast Guard does not have that ability with regard to larger ships. Torpedoes can fill this requirement reliably and economically. The Coast Guard might logically also be called upon to enforce blockades in wartime and would require a similar capability.
Unfortunately, the only torpedoes in the US inventory are designed for much more demanding missions than the Coast Guard requires for its peacetime missions–attacking high speed submarines that move in three dimensions at great depths. This has made them much more expensive than they need to be for the Coast Guard missions.
It now appears, we may have a low cost alternative.
Anduril has rolled out a new family of modular torpedo-like uncrewed underwater vehicles (UUV) called Copperhead. This includes kamikaze types…The Copperhead family of UUVs, which Anduril also refers to as autonomous undersea vehicles (AUV), currently consists of the 100 and 500-pound-class types, as well as “M” munition subvariants of each. The Copperhead-100 has an overall length of just under nine feet (approximately 2.7 meters) and is 12.75 inches in diameter, while the Copperhead-500 is just over 13 and a half feet (just over four meters) long and 21 inches wide…. the company says they can both reach top speeds in excess of 30 knots.
While there are probably other ways to launch, these systems are clearly designed to fit in existing torpedo tubes. Existing torpedoes have been autonomous Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUV) all along. Anduril is taking the basic torpedo form and broadening its application, while retaining the option of employing the UUV as a weapon.
The 500 and 100 designations refer to the approximate payload weight, not the weight of the device.
Copperhead 100 is 12.75″ “in diameter” and 106″ in length. These outer dimensions are essentially identical to that of the Mk54 but the diamond (square cross section) shape and the need to maintain near neutral buoyancy suggests it will be lighter, probably about 450 pounds.
Copperhead 500 with a 21-inch diameter and 163-inch length is short for a heavy weight torpedo. It probably weighs about 1700 pounds, a bit less than the USN air launched Mk13 Mod 0 (1,949 lbs. or 884 kg) and about half that of the 288 inch long surface launched Mk15 Mod3 (3,841 lbs. or 1,742 kg) torpedoes of WWII.
The speed for both systems is reported as greater than 30 knots. That is slow for a modern torpedo, but faster than nearly all commercial ships, military auxiliaries, and offshore patrol vessels.
As reusable systems, I would assume these are powered by rechargeable batteries like the SAAB Torped 47. Torped 47 is larger than Copperhead 100 but substantially smaller than Copperhead 500. Torped 47 as a reported range of at least 20 km so I would expect the 100 to have a bit shorter range and the 500 to have a longer range.
Among other things, Copperhead 500 UUVs could be used as a mobile mine. At slow speed it could go at least ten miles on its own, based on the old tech Mk37 based Mk67 mobile mine, so probably substantially further.
They might also be able to do Q-route surveys, checking port approach and departure routes for mines.
The Coast Guard might want to employ these systems as scientific or surveillance assets as well as weapons.
Coast Guard manned Destroyer Escort USS Menges, victim of a German Acoustic Homing Torpedo, May, 1944
Copperhead 100M would probably be adequate to immobilize most ships if the warhead exploded below the propeller(s) and rudder(s), but if the target managed to limp along after the first hit, a second might be necessary. If it is necessary to sink a target of over 1000 tons, then you would probably need the larger warhead of the 500M and/or multiple hits.
Equipping FRCs and larger cutters to support two Copperhead 100s and one Copperhead 500 might both answer the need for an effective ship stopper and also provide options for otherwise employing UUVs.
USNS Kilauea breaks in half after being hit by the torpedo.
Powerful shipboard firefighting monitors can operate with flow rates in the vicinity of 16,000 gallons per minute, generating nozzle pressures and forces capable of knocking down or destroying drones with seawater. SHUTTERSTOCK
Captain Karl Flynn, U.S. Marine Corps, offers a novel counter to small drones,
It is well established that unmanned aerial systems (UASs) and vehicles (UAVs) are cheap, ubiquitous, and deadly against ground forces. While U.S. Navy ships and aircraft have proven themselves effective at shooting them down in the Red Sea, unmanned aircraft could soon become more dangerous in multiple environments: busy ports, canals, straits, the littorals, and other choke points. The Navy should explore using high-powered water cannons—also known as firefighting monitors—as ship-based counter-UAS (cUAS) weapons.
Now, I don’t think this would work against anything, but the small First Person Video drones that are now extremely common, but that is what the Coast Guard is most likely to encounter. At close range, water under high pressure can be damaging, but it’s not likely to cause collateral damage, like firearms could.
There are, of course, other reasons we might want to have powerful fire monitors.
SAN DIEGO (July 12, 2020) The U.S. Navy amphibious assault ship USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD-6) on fire at Naval Base San Diego, California (USA), on 12 July 2020. On the morning of 12 July, a fire was called away aboard the ship while it was moored pier side at Naval Base San Diego. Base and shipboard firefighters responded to the fire. Bonhomme Richard was going through a maintenance availability, which began in 2018. The fire was extinguished on 16 July.
They can also be used in less than lethal confrontations.
Screengrab from Philippine Coast Guard shows a Philippine vessel being water cannoned by the China Coast Guard on April 30, 2024.
They have become a regular feature of Gray Zone activities in the Western Pacific.
A water cannon battle between Taiwanese and Japanese Coast Guard vessels.
Frankly, what we have now looks kind of wimpy by comparison.
U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Waesche and Japan Coast Guard vessel JCGC Wakasa (PL-93) test their water cannons during a trilateral search and rescue exercise in the East Sea, June 6, 2024. Coast Guardsmen from Japan, Republic of Korea and the United States used the trilateral training as an opportunity to rehearse cohesion between the nations when operating together. The U.S. Coast Guard has operated in the Indo-Pacific for more than 150 years, and the service is increasing efforts through targeted patrols with our National Security Cutters, Fast Response Cutters and other activities in support of Coast Guard missions to enhance our partnership. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Elijah Murphy)
Chuck Hill's CG Blog 